In yesterday’s blog, I discussed a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Bermuda, namely Lauretta Lorna Stoneham v. Bertram Nathaniel Fraser, with respect to the effectiveness of cognitive assessments in determining testamentary capacity in the context of a will challenge. In this blog, I discuss a claim of proprietary estoppel brought by the plaintiff in the same proceedings.
The plaintiff sought to obtain title to a property in the Estate on the basis of proprietary estoppel. She claimed that the Deceased (i.e. her mother) had promised her the property during the Deceased’s lifetime, and she had relied on that promise to her detriment by making financial investments in the property. Specifically, she claimed that she had made financial contributions towards renovating the property between 1990 and 1994. Further, she had moved into the property to take care of the Deceased during which time she paid market rent to the Deceased.
The court noted that the test for proprietary estoppel requires the plaintiff to sufficiently establish the following three elements:
- A representation or assurance made to the plaintiff by the deceased;
- Reliance by the plaintiff on that representation or assurance; and
- Detriment to the plaintiff in consequence of her reasonable reliance.
The court noted that the representation, assurance, or promise does not need to be expressly made but rather can inferred from the indirect statements and conduct of the deceased. Moreover, for the requirement of reliance to be met, the representation, assurance, or promise must be one reason that the plaintiff acted in the manner she did but does not have to be the sole reason. Lastly, the concept of detriment is not narrow or technical. The detriment does not need to be quantifiable or involve the expenditure of money as long as it is substantial.
The court also noted that it is well established that a claim in proprietary estoppel survives the death of the testator and can be enforced against the testator’s representative(s). Nonetheless, the court found that the Deceased had not promised the property to the plaintiff based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.
Thank you for reading.